Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:38:53 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: trafdev <trafdev@mail.ru> Cc: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT: strange kernel balancer behaviour Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonBbmWwFF7TH81Y9NaZUkJdn-RW%2BkH2YLBJH8R4ksVw1g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51EEC361.9050806@mail.ru> References: <51E0E2AF.7090404@mail.ru> <CAMOc5cz6gP2N62T4QhbTdVar94O4FSdPDsqktD_9vJ0mYVqt_Q@mail.gmail.com> <51E44E2F.8060700@mail.ru> <CAJ-VmomHHfhExa4g63tT_sf0hTPa2T7jPKQGHrD0fchq=-k%2B=g@mail.gmail.com> <51E455D5.2090403@mail.ru> <20130722200205.GO26412@funkthat.com> <51EDA37A.9040200@mail.ru> <CAJ-Vmon-WdsUnH33smkf%2B33yrUHP0p-Fp3ng1ZyTsvLb9tQfVA@mail.gmail.com> <51EE198B.7040509@mail.ru> <CAJ-Vmokxo1LniNvKYerap8bRe9hpUWLvdzSYquNVyZX4Ata_sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmons_6XfywPm2SPnE1-aac8Lc-wBEN06kiezD2m49z=PYw@mail.gmail.com> <51EE2C2B.4020800@mail.ru> <CAJ-VmomoGzZUUKSz3mjssx4Yd93xRx9sBDwhyRLXFesNuiAayA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmomfb29QqOBi%2B8h6O-NV_jKoti9EhQW9tWyXJowYqCftNQ@mail.gmail.com> <51EEC361.9050806@mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 July 2013 10:54, trafdev <trafdev@mail.ru> wrote: > Yes, and if you kill this first thread - second thread will start to receive > connections and so on. > That's why I've used one processes-shared acceptor socket which behaves > better (load is balancing > between processes but equality of distribution is far from ideal). > > Btw as per https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/ Linux 3.1 SOLVES all these > problems via SO_REUSEPORT. Right, but the patch totally rewrites what SO_REUSEPORT means. I'd like to see similar behaviour in FreeBSD, but under a different socket option name. -adrain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonBbmWwFF7TH81Y9NaZUkJdn-RW%2BkH2YLBJH8R4ksVw1g>